Why Big Name Games Like Battlefront 2 Need Microtransactions

EA has finally come up with a temporary solution to all of the scrutiny it has received concerning Battlefront 2 and its microtransactions. But the backlash continues.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ZehnDrachen332d ago

Games are not more expensive to make. The publishers and devs make profits regardless if MT's are in a game

332d ago Replies(4)
--Onilink--331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

Im sorry but thats just wrong. There’s a little thing called inflation and it affects EVERYTHING. Claiming that games are not more expensive to make now than 5-10 years ago is just pure ignorance.

Sure, MT are generally awful, especially when done like BF2, but it should be pretty clear that devs are looking for other ways to increase revenue because the price of games has not increased in a lot of years (something you cant really say for other stuff)

There is a reason why a few year ago a million seller would be considered a big success and now they probably wont even make it even with those numbers

So yes, lets make sure that devs dont push crap like EA is doing right now, but we cant just pretend other type of DLC or things like collectors editions will disappear

Forn331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

This is actually misguided thinking. Technology has advanced a lot in video game production. It's easier now than ever for a nobody to get a hold of an engine, learn it, and put something together. Things have become much more streamlined as far as development, which lowers overall cost of game production. I'm not saying it doesn't take a lot of work, but it does change the game so to speak.

Ittoittosai331d ago

Thats the point, 60$ is the base price. You now have games that have copper, silver and gold edition, collector edition

bloop331d ago

I don't know about America but here in Ireland game prices are almost double what they were in the PS2/XBOX era. And I don't buy into the idea that mt's are necessary. It's just pure greed what EA have pulled here.

Prince_TFK331d ago

Games come with so many editions that it is hard to even keep track on all of them. Hell, Unisoft dedicated pages in theor website to show what are the differences between the editions of each games.

Aenea331d ago


The misguided thinking is what you're saying. Yes, it's easier to get your hands on tools to help with development, but 30 years ago those tools weren't much needed at all to make a game. Plus even with all the new technology to create games the amount of manpower and time that is involved compared to 30 years is astounding. Back then 1 person could make a game in 3 to 6 months, sometimes someone helped with music or graphics, now teams of up to 300 people are working 3 to 4 years to create one game and you're telling me that it's easier to make a game nowadays???????

hadowajp331d ago

I would much rather they just raised the price of the game so I know what it's going to cost me in the beginning. I've never paid for any mt but I'd gladly pay $100usd for a good game

RacerX331d ago

I wonder how much more profit they make considering they don't have to pay for disc's, packaging, retailers, shipping, leaving game disc's to collect dust on shelves, and being able to leave the game price extremely high for years because there is no second hand market in digital.

They are making a killing by going all digital download. And there is barely a second hand market for games anymore, so they keep prices as high as they want.

Imalwaysright331d ago

Fox engine allowed reducing development costs by 1/5.


It's just one engine but if this is possible with fox engine isn't it also possible with other engines? Frostbite is 10 years old and it already had multiple versions. Isn't it possible that DICE made their engine much more easy to work with despite being more capable than it was 10 years ago? It would be stupid not to right? I don't buy this notion that games are more expensive to make today than last generation unless I see the numbers myself.

rainslacker331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

There's also a thing called a burgeoning market, where more of a product sells than it did before. The growth in overall software sales greatly outpaces inflation. If anything, games should be cheaper because the market is over 3X bigger than it was at the start of last gen.

Despite inflation, game development budgets actually haven't increased, and in some cases have decreased. What has changed is the marketing budgets, which have become bloated. But nowadays, the biggest marketing budgets are subsidized by the console makers, so it evens out for the publishers.

In the mean time, publishers are more than happy to perpetuate this myth that games keep getting more expensive to make, and that they wouldn't get made without MT, because it helps them keep pushing out this crap. But look at the publishers who do this. It's EA and Ubisoft. They're the ones who keep saying it's too expensive, yet other publishers seem to get by just fine without going to extraordinary efforts to screw over the customer. MT exist a lot of times, but usually not in a way that is alienating.

For the most part, games that only sell a million, have a budget which reflects that kind of revenue. Publishers are generally pretty good at knowing how much a game will sell. They aren't going to spend more money on a game than they believe it will profit. Not all games meet those expectations, but often when you see publishers say that it didn't meet expectation, it's still profitted, they just wanted it to sell more.

BTW, it's been about 13 years since a million seller in the AAA market was considered a success.

memots331d ago

they make yearly 800m of fifa alone give me a fn break. Why do they need to make so much money on all games? give back a little. This greed is killing the industry

RosweeSon331d ago

Shenmue cost £20 million back in the day 15+ years ago... today’s money that’s a lot more games haven’t become more expensive to make developers are just spending more money big advertising budgets etc... which is a choice they don’t have to a lot of the time but they chuck it around in the hope they’ll be the next Call Of Duty Etc.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 331d ago
343_Guilty_Spark331d ago

You know this how? Are you an insider?

ZehnDrachen331d ago


Get over yourself.

If you were to do any kind of research, Big publishers/Devs that use MT's make hand over fist in profits. Games may be more expensive to make, but MT's are not justified because these expensive games still sell really well.

rainslacker331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

I'm a developer, and I've been telling people for a long time that the increased development costs hasn't been that much of an issue like some make it out to be.

Publishers are happy enough to perpetuate this idea so they can do MT, or maybe push digital or try and curb used sales, or maybe one day increase game prices.

One thing they always fail to mention is that software sales overall are up over 3X from when they first started saying that games were getting too expensive to make. That is a provable fact without being an insider. That's three times the revenue from the start of last gen. Game development prices certainly haven't increased 3X in 10 odd years. They've actually gotten cheaper to make when based on inflation, and actual development cost.

Too many people assume that some games that get reported budgets of $100-200 million(COD, AC, or GTA) that all AAA games cost this much. The reality is that most AAA games cost between 30-50 million to make, and have a marketing budget between $20-50 million. That's about what was believed, and in places stated it was last gen.

If any game requires MT to actually turn a profit, then the publisher either bloated the budget, or they simply aren't getting any sales on the game. Both things which means the game would probably fail with or without MT.

Think of it this way. There are actually a lot of AAA games made which don't use MT. Plenty which don't have COD/AC/GTA/Halo type sales. Yet they still get made, and investors still invest in them. If there wasn't a way to make money on those AAA games by just doing a game and not worrying about MT nonsense, then there would be no investors for those kinds of games. Investors want to have a return on investment. They aren't going to give money to a loss. Even if the publisher themselves invest the money, someone gives them the money as well.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 331d ago
Psychotica331d ago

I bet they had to pay a pretty large Star Wars license fee, especially when there is the new Star Wars movie coming out next month. I can see that being more expensive than say when the Clone War movies came out.

PlayableGamez-331d ago

Yeah i am starting to call bullcrap on this its to expensive for devs to make games excuse. There are plenty of huge games that do not have MTs in them that do just fine.
MTs just seems more like free money to publishers.

FlameBaitGod331d ago

This guy should learn the salaries of these people lol, typical EA game designers earn around 70k and thats the AVERAGE. Creative directors earn an AVERAGE of 134k at EA, it goes up to 204k annually, TWO HUNDRED AND FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS. Can you imagine how much money the heads of E.A are making ?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 331d ago
AspiringProGenji332d ago (Edited 332d ago )

No! Stop being an apologist. Nothing needs MTs to be successful

Parasyte331d ago

Exactly! Games like CoD, Halo, and Borderlands did it for years.

Aenea331d ago

But all of them had paid DLC and/or season passes as well!

Thing is that once they announced that BF2 would not have a season pass like BF1 had I immediately knew they had to do something else to get the same type of income.

Let's face it, even if they don't need to extra money from DLC/SP/MT's shareholders expect the companies to make more profits, not less, so it's impossible to go back without all of them...

Then there's the thing that I do believe that DLC/SP/MT's make it easier for developers to greenlit games as they are less of a gamble since without it really needs more people interested in it to buy it

_-EDMIX-_331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

huh? Not really.

All the games you listed had DLC to sell. Halo 5 has free maps and such, but still sells MTs, in fact the model has been praised by many Halo fans in terms of being able to fund Halo, while all are getting free maps and MT for cosmetics

Your post actually supports the idea that they can't be made without some sort of DLC being sold....all the games you listed sell something after the fact, I think its very funny that your own post is ironically showing that it sorta can't be done.

331d ago
fenome332d ago

Let's not act like these people are sleeping in their cars barely scraping by. I hate this "Games are more expensive to make" argument. Yes, that's true, but they're also more profitable than they've ever been before, especially with this pre-order culture we have surrounding it now.

Someone please tell me how games that don't have any of this stuff included and only sell 1/16 of what these games do are not only profitable but also considered highly successful? I'll wait

BLow331d ago

Well at least you admit that it cost more to make a game unlike the first comment on here. He must live on another planet. Agree with what you said.

There is another side of the story too. We are the consumers and of course we don't see the other side of the equation. It's crazy expensive to make games now and now days especially, you better hope it gets 9 or 10s in reviews or your screwed.

Some of these companies have tens if not hundreds of people working on a game. If it doesn't do well, we always here people getting laid off or the studio shutting down completly. This can even happen with good games as well that just don't sell. It not all black and white and we need to sit back a bit and not be so closed minded when it comes to these things.

Unless we actually know or have experience developing games then we need to be a little more opened minded. I'm in no way defending what EA is doing but we need to find some kind of solution or middle ground.

A lot of people enjoy games but don't have all the time in the world to play them like some people on here. We can't just say forget those people but we also can't just make it easy for them either because then others are going to abuse the system.

If any of the hardcore people came up with a solution instead of just complaining, please let us all know how it should be done. Then we can spread the word. A system they caters to people with all the time in the world and those who don't have much time. Again the world doesn't just revolve around you. We have to think outside the bubble.

bigmalky331d ago

The crazy expense is on paying guys in suits a salary to sit in an office to find more ways to screw the customers and overblown marketing. These guys also have huge tax breaks and are likely using offshore tax havens to save even more money. The devs likely get paid much less per head than the guys doing nothing but cutting their work into bits to make the publishers more money.

I have no sympathy. I have seen profits for these companies and they do not need to find more ways to make customers poorer or have to quit gaming.

fenome331d ago (Edited 331d ago )


I agree with your level headed response, but this is Star Wars Battlefront. This game will be profitable day one just on the name alone even with all the controversy surrounding it. They intentionally screwed up their progression system around pay models and built a game around it. If they want to turn their online multiplayer free to play then that's fine, but I won't support anyone who screws their creation on purpose trying to grab a quick buck. There are plenty of devs out there that have true passion and heart that deserve it much more than them.

I bust my ass for my money and I earn it, I expect nothing less from the people I hand it over to.

Anyways, I'm sick of talking about Battlefront. Some people will buy it some won't, it is what it is. Hopefully we get some new gameplay or info on something else around here though because this whole situation has just blown up this site.

Seafort331d ago

Does game development really cost more than it used to? I just mean the actual development of the game not the marketing, the licensing of the game IP like Star Wars and any additional costs the "suits" pay to hype the game up to something it isn't.

I don't think the actual game development costs have increased much at all.

The marketing costs and paying for the Star Wars license from Disney has nothing to do with game development. This is all added expenses that the publisher chose to pay for which is now passed onto the customer via microtransactions and overpriced games.

I'm glad of the backlash that EA and other publishers are getting. It serves to tell the customer has all the power and not the publisher or developer. The customer will always be right no matter what anyone says.

The customer pays the bills no one else. The publisher do well to remember that.

Bhuahahaha331d ago

and not to mention the gaming industry has bigger market now compare to before.

rainslacker331d ago

It's so nice seeing more people recognizing this, after all of last gen where people just kept assuming that game dev costs were continuously inflating. The only increase was over the prior gen, There was some fluctuation, but generally, the'yre cheaper to make now than at the start of last gen.

EA really screwed up here. They got people questioning the neccessity of MT, and it puts one of the biggest reasons EA itself used to justify their inclusion.

I would love to see some official comment from an unbiased verifiable industry professional who finally kills off the notion that games are too expensive, so we need MT, or need to kill used game sales, or need online passes, or just need them because they won't make enough money otherwise.

I'm tired of publisher perpetuating this myth in the hopes of fleecing the customer. I'm a game developer, and while as a developer I certainly would want as much money as possible, as a consumer, I want my interest protected more. But even as a developer, I can understand the pride I have in creating a good product that the customer will actually enjoy, without having all the BS attached, because I'd rather people have fun, than consider if the game is worth it based on stupid things like the "value" of it's MT system.

Nyxus332d ago

This game was going to sell like hotcakes regardless, on the name alone. I don't think MTs should be necessary for such a large release.

UCForce331d ago (Edited 331d ago )

But EA will be exposed even more. Trust me, game community really tired about this EA BS. The Dutch and British Authorities are investigating about BF 2 gambling.

DillyDilly331d ago

It will sell but it will have a big player drop off

andrewsquall331d ago

"WAS" going to is certainly the key word. Not anymore though.

justsomeoffdude331d ago

it's all about greed with EA, everyone with common sense knew the sales alone would make the game profitable but that's not enough for EA, it's never enough with them

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 331d ago
Mikelarry332d ago

Right on time the apologist articles are starting to pop up, this game was going to sell gang busters on its name alone to suggest otherwise just shows that this is just shills doing what they do best.